Tullio Simoncini’s Lucrative Little Cancer Cure sCam?

Ever wondered how he does it? We have – and we think it might go like this.

When you are diagnosed with cancer, there are two things that will scare the hell out of you: the fact that it may kill you, and conventional treatment.

Then you hear about an Italian doctor who claims he can cure cancer with a 90% success rate, by using a treatment that has hardly any side effects: sodium bicarbonate. Because of his huge success rate, conventional science is jealous of him and makes his life a misery.

You decide to put your fate into his hands. You fly to Rome, receive the treatment and hope for the best. Sadly though, it turns that you belong to the 10% for whom the treatment doesn’t work.

Now what?

Simoncini knows: lumpectomy, followed by more sodium bicarbonate infusions, directly into the surgery site this time. For some reason, this lumpectomy cannot be done by a local surgeon, covered by your health insurance. According to Simoncini, it is imperative that it be done in a private clinic in Rome.

Now and then a little voice inside your head wonders why you would need sodium bicarbonate infusions again. After all, the sodium bicarb didn’t work to begin with, did it?

But Simoncini convinces you, this is a different approach, this time it will work, he has done it before, with a very high success rate. So you agree. You waste your money, but you also waste your time and time is the one thing you cannot afford to waste, for you have cancer.

This can go on until you are either broke or dead.

A lucrative little scam this seems, for Simoncini and his friends in the private clinic. A very nice lucrative little scam.

Beth has decided to cure herself of breast cancer with Tullio Simoncini’s baking soda therapy and a “healthy” lifestyle. She was diagnosed July 2008. On her blog you can read that Beth is also one of Simoncini’s “10% no-success rate.” This is what she tells us about it:

Recently when Dr. Simoncini was in town for the Wellness Expo, David and I were able to meet with him and re-evaluate where I’m at. After an examination, he said that while 90% of tumors totally collapse and dissipate after receiving the sodium bicarbonate injections, 10% respond by becoming really hard and encapsulated—a protection mechanism of the body to keep the cancer from spreading. I’m in the 10% category.

His recommendation was to have a lumpectomy (surgical removal of the tumor) with sodium bicarbonate infusions directly into the surgery site. This is the same principle of “cleansing” the area with chemotherapy . . . the difference of course being that sodium bicarbonate doesn’t harm the body in any way.

For myself I would be quite content to continue fighting the tumor with nutrition instead of surgery . . . but my dear husband is not. Since every single doctor we have seen (both conventional and naturalpath) and my nutritionist are all now saying surgery—surgery it is.

Since there is no one in the United States currently doing this approach, we once again have tickets to fly to Rome. We are scheduled to leave Sunday, May 3rd and will be there approximately 10 days.

The good news is that Beth has finally decided on a lumpectomy – let’s hope this will do the trick, after all the time she has been wasting.

The bad news though is that the lumpectomy will be performed in Italy, in a private clinic of Simoncini’s choice and that it wil be followed by more infusions with sodium bicarbonate. We don’t know if Simoncini will be doing the surgery himself – God forbid – or that it will be done by one of his mates.

Read what our pathologist Jli has to say about this:

Sounds like another bad idea. There will be no feedback as to resection margins or other factors of significance to the risk of recurrence/development of metastatic disease. And if the surgeon believes that the hard stuff he is cutting out is only “a protective encapsulating layer” then he really shouldn´t be allowed to operate on cancer patients.

I wrote Beth that if she would have done what her oncologist said one year ago now she had all the programmed treatments done (even if they include neoadjuvant chemo, surgery, adjuvant chemo and radiotherapy …) and now she’d be living WITHOUT cancer …
Luckily, breast cancer isn’t fast in growth like a NHL: now she probably is still in time to do the right thing …

You are right, most breast cancers take their time. But some – like mine was too – are very fast growing indeed. I was extremely lucky, it was caught in an early stage and my lymph nodes were still clean. I still decided to do adjuvant chemo, just in case. I don’t dare think what my situation might have been had I not been treated conventionally.

We must try not to be too frustrated when Beth and her husband decide to hook up with Simoncini after all. We have warned them and given them the facts. We can now only hope that they will consider the possibility that standard medicine can be God’s instrument in curing her.

“Beth has decided to cure herself of breast cancer with Tullio Simoncini’s baking soda therapy and a “healthy” lifestyle. ”

This is an untrue statement. Had you thoroughly read Beth’s blog you would find she has never set out to “cure herself”, she has placed her life and her faith in God and trusted Him to restore her to health. At first I was like “really??” to realize you had quoted Beth’s personal words on your website, but now I am kind of sad. If you knew Beth you would know, she is not afraid of death, she has put her life and future in the hands of the Lord. The issue here is not really which is better, traditional medicine or alternative medicine….the issue here is fear of death. The bottom line is even if everyone got cured of cancer by means of traditional medicine, we are all going to DIE at some point, from something. Perhaps we should not be arguing about the best way to prevent death, but seriously contemplating what we might face on the other side. There is hope for Beth and every other cancer patient as well as healthy person in Jesus Christ. THAT is what Beth’s blog is about, not alternative medicine.

May I also add, I have recntly spoken with Dr simoncini myself, in the hope of sending a family member to him. After explaining their treatment history and current prognosis he informed us he did not recommend his protocol post surgery or chemotherapy… I’m confused because if the mans focus is on money, why would he not administer his protocol to such patients, a vast amount of cancer patients turn to alternative medicine once their orthodox medicine can no longer be of any use, there is a lot of money to be made from them… im sure Dr simoncini is more then aware of this…

“I have recntly spoken with Dr simoncini myself, in the hope of sending a family member to him. After explaining their treatment history and current prognosis he informed us he did not recommend his protocol post surgery or chemotherapy”

a vast amount of cancer patients turn to alternative medicine once their orthodox medicine can no longer be of any use, there is a lot of money to be made from them

Beth didn’t even try orthodox medicine, she turned tot AM right away.

As for people turning to AM: there will always be a limit to what medical science can do to treat disease, and therefore I’m afraid there will always be quacks slagging the medical profession off and claiming their “natural” product is the miracle cure that everyone else but them are too biased, ignorant or corrupt to recognise. Alternative healers should be honest to their clients and not tell them they can easily be cured when they can’t and charge them money for these lies as well. I think that is despicable. But even more despicable is how they treat someone like Beth, who has a very good chance of a complete recovery with mainstram medicine. Simoncini should have sent her back to her to her oncologist at once. But he doesn’t, instead he makes her believe that she doesn’t need mainstream medicine and can easily get rid of her cancer with his baking soda treatment. We can only hope now that Beth is extremely lucky and that her cancer hasn’t spread in the past year, so that the lumpectomy alone will do the trick. If not, there is still a chance she can be saved, but not by Simoncini.

I don’t understand why Beth’s choice of dealing with her cancer has gotten so deeply under the skin of this anax blog??

The members of this blog are from various countries where Tullio Simoncini has been treating cancer patients. Some of those have had to witness closely how a loved one died as a result of the false promises of this man and the disastrous way he treats his patients. Actually, Beth’s case was brought to our attention by one of Simoncini’s proponents, as a showcase for the miraculous effects of baking soda as a cure for cancer:

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2009
We just received good news from my nutritionist in Colorado. The last sample of my blood (the first one since our trip to Rome) came back looking great! He has several ways of testing cancer markers and they are significantly down—especially in the area of the tumor! Praise God!!

He is switching up my supplements quite a bit and even giving me more liberty diet-wise—makes for a very happy me!!

So, I continue on. Everyone keeps asking when . . . but I don’t go back to my oncologist until the end of January. At that point we will schedule another ultrasound to see if there has been any change since receiving treatment from Dr. Simoncini. His recommendation was to wait eight weeks and we’re almost to that point.

Another really fun turn of events is that Dr. Simoncini is coming to our little nick of the woods. He is scheduled to be in Dallas on Doug Kaufmann’s show, “Know the Cause” again and my friend, Antoniette, arranged for him to be part of Tyler’s Wellness Expo. This is so exciting and we’ll be glad to see Dr. Simoncini again. He had told us in Rome he wanted to check up on me when he comes to Dallas . . . this will simply make it all the easier. We are so, so blessed!

However, when we read Beth’s blog, we couldn’t quite see all these wonderful effects and we worried that Beth’s story might not end so well. So we tried to warn her. She is a young wife and mother of 4, with her whole life ahead of her. Early stage breast cancer, treated conventionally, has excellent prognosis. The longer she waits, the greater the chance she won’t survive. Who in the world could possibly want that? Who in the world could possibly stand by silently and watch this happen??

The bottom line is even if everyone got cured of cancer by means of traditional medicine, we are all going to DIE at some point, from something.

Do you really think that is the bottom line? To me that is just stating the obvious.

I was not brought up in your faith. I was brought up in the faith that says that life is the greatest gift, which we are to revere, to cherish and to protect every single day and that if you save a life it is as if you have saved the world.

@ beatis
“Alternative healers should be honest to their clients and not tell them they can easily be cured when they can’t and charge them money for these lies as well”

as i mentioned earlier, Dr Simoncini was honest with me on the phone, he informed me he could not treat the family member I was enquiring about due to the nature of their cancer and the amount of orthodox treatment they already had… what is dishonest about that? That was my point I was trying to illustrate when i made the following comment
” a vast amount of cancer patients turn to alternative medicine once their orthodox medicine can no longer be of any use, there is a lot of money to be made from them” in my experience in contacting him, Dr Simoncini did not exploit this…

I don’t know Beth personally. But she comes accross as a very sweet, gentle, honest and guileless person. I don’t doubt that she is a wonderful wife, mother and friend. I think she deserves the best medical treatment there is and a long and happy life with her family and everyone that loves her.

With many medical charlatans, there are other aspects besides greed that play an important part in their behaviour, such as extreme narcissism and delusions of grandeur. The fact that Simoncini thinks he found the cure for cancer, when he clearly hasn’t, and blames all the scientists the world over of either being immensely stupid and/or bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry to me is a clear indication that there is something not quite right about him very wrong about him.

“This is nonsense. He cannot treat cancer patients because 1) cancer is not a fungus and 2) it cannot be cured with baking soda.”

Yes but again, you have been reporting on this blog that he lies to people and tells them he can cure them so he can rob them of their money, why did he not tell me our relative could be cured and take our money?

The same scenario was for a friend of mine whos sister in law is in the same situation, again Simoncini refused to offer her treatment…

“there is something not quite right about him very wrong about him.”

There is something very wrong with the medical indsutry when advanced cancer treatments such as SIRT radiation considered highly effective and more so then standard treatment is not available on the NHS or PBS to all cancer patients who qualify for it, there is something very wrong when this ‘new’ treatment particularly good for secondary liver cancer when it will cost the patient upto $20,000 to recieve this treatment and if they can’t afford it, too bad they get stuck with standard chemo which according to their oncologist is not as effective…

There is something very wrong with the medical indsutry when advanced cancer treatments such as radiation considered highly effective and more so then standard treatment is not available on the NHS or PBS to all cancer patients who qualify for it, there is something very wrong when this ‘new’ treatment particularly good for secondary liver cancer when it will cost the patient upto $20,000 to recieve this treatment and if they can’t afford it, too bad they get stuck with standard chemo which according to their oncologist is not as effective…

I don’t know why this is would not be refunded by the health insurer. I fail to see the relevance to the baking soda therapy by Simonconi however. Baking soda cannot cure cancer. You seem to think that when there is a wrong somewhere, this somehow excuses another wrong. But two wrongs don’t make a right. It is wrong when an effective treatment is not funded by the health insurer. And it is wrong to say that baking soda can cure cancer when it can’t.

I have no idea why Simoncini said he could not treat the sister in law of your friend or why he could not treat your friend. Perhaps the justice department is on his heels, perhaps he has enough patients at the moment, perhaps he is finally coming to his senses.

not sure if it’s the justice department on his heels as this was only a couple of months ago…

Im not suggesting two wrongs make a right…
but if you are warning people of scams and being ripped off, why aren’t instances such as this in regards to select internal radiation therapy (SIRT) brought forward also? http://www.umgcc.org/sir-spheres/about_sirt.htm
is info on how this treatment is highly regarded and in some cases could prove as a long term cure for stage IV secondary liver cancer patients… but at a small cost of $20,000…

As not every woman has these undetectably small metastases, many women received chemotherapy while not actually needing it.

That’s right. The problem is that there is no way of determining if these metastases are there or not – there is, or rather, was, no way of knowing in which category you fell. Recently, a new technique has been developed that can predict which breast cancers are likely to metastasize and which ones are not. It is called mamaprint: http://humangenetics.suite101.com/article.cfm/gene_expression_of_metastatic_breast_cancer The technique will be expanded to other cancers in the coming years. This will bring down the number of chemotherapies considerably.

I’m happy you are one of the few I have come across who has had 100% success with your experience of cancer and orthodox treatment

I didn’t say it was a 100 % success. I feel well after my treatment. Whether it was a 100% success, only time will tell. Breast cancer is notorious for late recurrence. But my prognosis is good, so there is a good chance my cancer is definitely gone.

“The chemotherapy I had, can enhance the average long-term survival of breast cancer patients by 5-7%”
what does the 5-7% actually mean?

Without the chemotherapy, the chance that I will still be cancer free 10 years after the primary diagnosis is 75-80%. With the chemotherapy, the chance that I will still be cancer free 10 years after primary diagnosis is 80-85%. Five per cent equals 1 in every 20 women. To me that was worthwhile.

but if you are warning people of scams and being ripped off

This blog is about warning people about the dangers of alternative cancer therapies. I don’t know in which country you live, but couldn’t you try to bring this matter to the attention of politics and/or consumer-patient organizations? In my country, this helped to get Herceptin funded as an adjuvant, that is, for non-metastasized breast cancers also.

Gimme a break, actually comprehend the smoke and mirrors being spouted (by this quack and all the others) like “due to the nature of … the amount of orthodox treatment they already had” he won’t offer treatment – cheap cop-out.

“a vast amount of cancer patients turn to alternative medicine once their orthodox medicine can no longer be of any use” Not everything can be successful, there are inevitable poor reponses depending on the type of disease – this is reality, not failure. Using fraudulent treatments won’t change it either, it just drains your wallet and emotions.

2) beatis wrote: “Perhaps the justice department is on his heels” Hopefully…

“perhaps he has enough patients at the moment” Read: he has a shit-load of easier marks than what your case appears to be.

“perhaps he is finally coming to his senses” Doubtful.

You and your family dodged a bomb by his not accepting your case.

3) What was the cancer diagnosis? What stage? How has it responded to treatments so far?

don’t pardon yourself, no bother to me.. bit of self projection won’t do any harm…

Not sure why our case wasn’t easy? we speak italian, had money to spend and were ready to get going as soon as possible

Bowel Cancer with multiple mestases throughout the liver was the initial diagnosis… I already mentioned the treatments earlier so I wont repeat myself unless I can elaborate on anything for you? just let me know ! :)

I am happy, very happy in fact. That after almost a year her lymph nodes are still clear makes her an extremely lucky lady.

However, I still think she acted irresponsibly by wasting so much time. After all, her oncologist already advised lumpectomy last year, at the time of the diagnosis. But I hope from the bottom of my heart that she is cancer free now and will live a long and happy life.

Just wondering: how was it determined that Beth’s lymph nodes were clear?

My tumour was first analysed in a frozen section analysis. This means that the tissue is frozen and rushed to the lab for a first analysis by the pathologist during surgery, allowing doctors for rapid and accurate microscopic analysis of the tissue while the patient is still in the operating room. Frozen section analysis gives about 90 % certainty on the state of the tissue surronding the tumour.

In my country – as in many other countries as well for that matter – frozen section analysis is followed by definitive analysis in greater detail by the pathologist. This takes longer, about 4 days. Because she has allowed her cancer to grow unhindered for almost a year, I hope this was done in Beth’s case as well, as it gives more certainty about her condition than the frozen section analysis alone.

According to the post on her blog the procedure was performed in a hospital in Milan – not a private clinic. So chances are that she was operated by people who know about these things, and that the diagnostic procedures were done properly. On the other hand she was also treated with sodium bicarbonate, so if this hospital believes that pathologic examination is a waste of time (The expressed opinion of Simoncini) then there is a good reason to be concerned.

On the other hand she was also treated with sodium bicarbonate, so if this hospital believes that pathologic examination is a waste of time (The expressed opinion of Simoncini) then there is a good reason to be concerned.

Apparently Simoncini’s treatment doesn’t come that cheap after all, nor do the treatments of Beth’s other alternative health care providers:
None of what Beth is doing to get rid of her cancer is covered by their health insurance. None of it will cure her cancer, except hopefully the lumpectomy. But lumpectomy is part of conventional cancer treatment, there’s nothing alternative about it. I hope from the bottom of my heart that the lumpectomy alone will suffice to cure Beth. But I also hope decent tissue examination was done, to find out if the cancer has spread and if so, how far. The only thing that can possibly have saved her life at this point is the lumpectomy. This means that a tremendous amount of money has been wasted on completely useless treatments. Far worse is the amount of time that has been wasted. And wasting time is a thing no cancer patient can afford. I think that is a ****** shame.

All natural? Get rid of toxins? Raising her immune system? I hope for her she doesn’t have lymphoma. It might work. They could give her a glass of freshly squeezed, organic hemlock. That’ll at least get rid of the pain. Permanently.

Maybe, they could have a look in countries where “all natural” is the only choice, and then see how outreageously long those people live.

I find it so funny that these “naturalists” (lol) always know how much money they need for everything. That seems to be one of their strong points. In medicine, we never know how much something will cost because every disease and every patient is so different.

There are indeed some references in the Bible that indicate that God doesn’t like medicine, but I think that the real reason has more to do with the fact that religious believers tend to be paralogical thinkers, they choose the route of least evidence. Quackery is like that too, and I am guessing that this makes them feel more comfortable.

This site is a violation of people’s privacy. Did Beth ask for your opinion on how she deals with cancer or how she spends her money?? I just don’t understand why you cannot let this go! It’s not about you, move on.

No it isn´t. There is no information on this site about Beth that she hasn´t already made public on the internet herself. But there is a wealth of information on Simoncini that he doesn´t give, and which every cancer patient considering his treatment should have the right to know about. Furthermore none of the posts has expressed anything but concern for Beth. What is so disgusting about that? Rather than come here and rant and then run away again, you should try to look at what is explained here on this blog with and open mind.

Ultra-brave Anonymous said: I just don’t understand why you cannot let this go! It’s not about you, move on.

Well, we could, for example, care about Beth’s life. When a human suffers and dies because he/she believes in non-existing deities, healing methods that are known not to work, and others, we have failed as a society. No one should have to die because of a mistaken belief in magic.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

ok ok. I have a solution. Lets put Simonchinis healing methods to test on rats, and humans, just like they do it with all other drugs. After all these tests it will be clear once and for all, it works or it does not. How obout that

Tullio Simoncini claims that “excess acidity” of the body causes it to be infected with a fungus called Candida Albicans. Therefore, he argues, lowering the body’s acidity would cause the fungus – and thus the cancer – to go away. There are a number of things wrong here. First of all, cancer is definitely not a fungus. If this were so, we would all be able to see this, as fungus and cancer look completely different. Perhaps a blind man would confuse them, but certainly not pathologists with state of the art equipment. Secondly, even if this were true, there is no evidence whatsoever that an infection of candida albicans can be cured with infusions of baking soda. Thirdly, there is no evidence whatsoever that cancer (the real thing, not the imagined fungus) can be cured with baking soda. And lastly, lowering the body’s acidity is dangerous and may cause a person’s death.

Simoncini’s cancer theory is just plain wrong on every possible level.

We should also remember that conventional oncologists do have working experience with what happens when cancer patients are given sodium bicarbonate (SB). Sometimes cancer patients develop something called tumour lysis syndrome during chemo- or radiotherapy.

The degradation of DNA and RNA from destroyed cancer cells lead to formation of uric acid, which may precipitate in the kidneys (and elsewhere). Infusion of SB helps keeping the uric acid dissolved and facilitates its disposal with the urine.

So if SB had any effect of its own on cancer, it would have been observed.

I wish to all the writers here that ofend Dr. Simoncini, to experiance the pain of cancer on them selvs or in their families, that will change for ever your nasty way of existing in this place called earth !!!

I wish for everyone that they will never have to experience cancer, either for themselves or their loved ones. I also wish they will not fall into the clutches of dangerous quacks like Tullio Simoncini, should they ever have to experience cancer. Nobody ever was and ever will be cured of cancer by his ridiculous, dangerous and completely ineffective baking soda treatment.

I concur with Beatis. I do not wish cancer upon anyone. I think the wish put forward by “CANCER – THE FORBIDDEN CURES” is absolutely disgusting. And it demonstrates that cancer quackery supporters are not necesarily humanitarians. Not that I ever thought they were, but here it is in plain view.

Beatis, I’m pretty neutral on this debate, but I have an enquiring mind. I don’t have cancer (yet)…but I have a friend who does. He is under death sentence. He has given up on chemo because the pain and misery to extend his life a month or two doesn’t seem worth it.

Your blog says Simoncini claims a 90% success rate. Those under a death sentence (under conventional treatment) would still be encouraged if it was the other way round, and even a 10% success rate was possible. They are willing to clutch at straws.

I don’t think we should be too quick to tell them that the ‘only’ way is what we have now. Some of the biggest medical advances have occurred through accidental discoveries of ‘cheap’ (but unconventional) treatments.

My friend feels immense frustration that conventional cancer treatment is in itself a scam. Drug companies research only in areas where they can patent ever more expensive drugs. The new drugs are adopted by the authorities, but don’t actually appear to improve survival, yet are vastly more expensive. The big companies have the power to actively obstruct research into new areas, especially if the ‘answer’ might be cheap. They do, of course, have their own vested interests.

My personal experience with medical “quackery” was that I was immobilised in pain after doing something to my back. My (sceptical) GP had just been on a short acupuncture awareness course, and asked if I (even more sceptical than him) wanted to try it. It worked. Yet “conventional medicine” still doesn’t understand what the Chinese discovered a thousand years ago. My “cure” flew totally in the face of conventional treatment that had me paralysed on the floor.

Of course there will be quacks and exploiters of people in deep distress. But I do feel that we cannot dismiss as scams what some (not all, I’m sure) have stumbled into. Simoncini’s accidental discovery may well work for SOME people. Surely though, we should be encouraging research into these new ‘treatments’ to see just where (if at all) they can be be effective, rather than dismissing anything outside currently accepted practice?

Science history is full of discoveries of areas where the “impossible” did indeed become possible, and thinking (and “laws of science”) had to be changed. Very often, the innovators were persecuted, yet were later proved correct.

It’s pretty arrogant to assume or claim that we have all the answers, and that no improvements are possible, Science (in any discipline) only advances when minds are open. Unfortunately, in areas where vested interests are in control, innovation can, and will, be suppressed.

I really don’t know if Simoncini is a scam merchant or not. But I’m interested to see that serious research into his proposition IS now being conducted at several research institutions worldwide..Some medical professionals evidently feel that he has found SOMETHING, and that it’s worth pursuing.

Just remember that it was 2000 years after Hippocrates observed that willow bark could “cure” pain, before “Aspirin” was properly “discovered” (and patented!!!). He was probably regarded as a witchdoctor in his time. Indeed, he was put in prison for 2 decades for daring to flout then-current thinking on “medicine”.

Let’s not be too quick to dismiss new discoveries as heresy, especially when those loudest in condemnation have an awful lot to lose, in our wickedly commercial world.

Your blog says Simoncini claims a 90% success rate. Those under a death sentence (under conventional treatment) would still be encouraged if it was the other way round, and even a 10% success rate was possible. They are willing to clutch at straws.

That is a very good reason to despise Simoncini. He is making money out of tricking people who have a deadly disease.

Some of the biggest medical advances have occurred through accidental discoveries of ‘cheap’ (but unconventional) treatments.

Simoncini hasn’t discovered anything. His idea that cancer is a fungus is a demonstrably wrong idea. Preclinical experiments demonstrate that the principle behind his treatment doesn’t work (Alkalizing the tumour-environment may reduce the number of metastasis, but does nothing to the cancer itself). And having treatment (overseen) by Simoncini is by no measure cheap.

The big companies have the power to actively obstruct research into new areas, especially if the answer might be cheap. They do, of course, have their own vested interests.

But you are forgetting, that there have been genuine research into anti-cancer capabilities of sodium bicarbonate. The results have just not been as expected if Simoncini was right.

I really don’t know if Simoncini is a scam merchant or not.

There is no doubt in my mind, that he is a scammer. I know that cancer is not a fungus because I have looked (I examine cancer as well as fungal infections on a daily basis). And I have read the scientific articles about experiments on the anticancer capabilities of sodium bicarbonate.

Let’s not be too quick to dismiss new discoveries as heresy, especially when those loudest in condemnation have an awful lot to lose, in our wickedly commercial world.

I have been using baking soda in water for a few years now and it keeps my ph in the normal range! Interesting about the baking soda is that they add it to the chemo treatment because it is so poisonous that without it the patient would die!! By the way, so far everyone I know who has done the chemo and radiation, only two have survived. The rest died from the treatment because it made them so sick!

Everyone is so sure …just like the medical professionals were that bacteria could not exist in the stomach until an Australian hospital registrar met a Australian pathologist with an enquiring mind discovered and proved by experimenting on himself by ingesting a petri dish of the culture that they did…helicobacter pylori.. promptly developed the symptoms …and won the Nobel prize. ..and incidentally ruined a thriving industry in anti ulcer treatment that now just needed a short course of anti-biotics

I have been using baking soda in water for a few years now and it keeps my ph in the normal range!

No – The fine tuned mechanisms that operate in your body to maintain a pH within normal range did that.

Interesting about the baking soda is that they add it to the chemo treatment because it is so poisonous that without it the patient would die!!

When cancer cells are destroyed by chemotherapy, there is a risk that the break down products may precipitate, which can be very dangerous. Bicarbonate helps keeping these products dissolved, so that they can be eliminated through the urine. So if bicarbonate had an anticancer effect on its own we would know about it – wouldn’t we?

The rest died from the treatment because it made them so sick!

You should try not to confuse deaths due to adverse events with preventable deaths. For example, failing to treat curable cancers with chemotherapy would reduce the number of deaths due to complications of chemotherapy. But the number of deaths due to cancer would rise, and those people who did not die from a chemotherapy related complication would still die.

I have actually spoken with Barry Marshall. I can assure you, that he is in no way against the scientific method. What sort of observation would convince you that Simoncini is wrong?

….and incidentally ruined a thriving industry in anti ulcer treatment that now just needed a short course of anti-biotics…..

Here is something you can actually do your own fact checking. Here is what I would suggest that you do:
1) Find out if all stomach ulcers really are caused by Helicobacter Pylori (the name of the bacteria you mention).
2) Find out if acid reducing medication is available in pharmacies.
3) Find out if they are made by the pharmaceutical industry (if the answer to 2) is yes).

Unfortunately not. A grade 4 astrocytoma (which I assume you are asking about) is synonymous with glioblastoma. There are a few reports of patients who tried it, and they did not even experience a relief of symptoms. See for instance this report . Also the last case on this list illustrate how horrible this treatment can be to patients with brain cancer.

I totally agree with Scottie here, and I also believe in Dr. Simoncini. People are saying he’s taking people for money. What do you think the medical Dr’s who use traditional medicines are doing? It says something when most DR’s wouldn’t even take chemo themselves for cancer. A Dr. told me one time that they treat symptoms; they don’t cure anything. The reason none of his treatments are covered by insurance is because insurances do not cover holistic treatments. It doesn’t mean they don’t work. Would you think that apple cider vinegar is a treatment for heartburn, or that it can get rid of warts? Sulphur also kills warts. These natural treatments, I have experienced myself. I’ve also had an overgrowth of yeast in my body, in which I have used the natural treatments for this, and let me tell you when you go from your body feeling stiff, aching, and sore, and having swelling in joints and your nerves “standing on end”, as described by the neurosurgeon, back to feeling no pain, that indeed is a convincer of the holistic meds. I’d brush my hair and have burning and tingling sensations for a period of time from that. I had redness and itching in parts of my body, could barely walk without pain, and after doing the natural treatment to kill the yeast while also on an anti-yeast diet, I was back to my 3 or 4 miles of jogging again within 3 weeks, so you bet I totally believe in Dr. Simoncini’s treatment. To beatis and JLI, I would just like to know what are your credentials to make the statements that you have about Dr. Simoncini and his treatment? Also, have you spoken to his patients? Do you know of his success rate in these treatments? Dr. Simoncini has brought his documented evidence to medical conventions in the U.S. and evidentally he has convinced some experts to do their own research. I just hope he gets credit for it when it’s provenhttp://uanews.org/story/grant-fuel-baking-soda-cancer-therapy-research. Here’s another link that tells the results they are finding in their mice experiments. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323645

To those of us who understand cancer, and also what he know because of his education, there is no better explanation for his actions.

It says something when most DR’s wouldn’t even take chemo themselves for cancer.

And what does it tell you, when the people who told you so are demonstrably wrong? I am willing to give you a chance to declare yourself as standing corrected. You only need to read this post with an open mind.

A Dr. told me one time that they treat symptoms; they don’t cure anything.

This doctor was demonstrably wrong (Or you misunderstood what he explained). Approximately 60% of all cancers are cured through conventional treatment. This is demonstrably not the case with alternative therapy.

Would you think that apple cider vinegar is a treatment for heartburn, or that it can get rid of warts?

What I think is irrelevant here. This blog is about the dangers of replacing conventional treatment of cancer with alternative therapy. How you want to deal with minor trivialities of life is your own business. I can only try to explain why Tullio Simoncini’s ideas about cancer are wrong. If you don’t want to open your mind, there isn’t much to be done about it.

To beatis and JLI, I would just like to know what are your credentials to make the statements that you have about Dr. Simoncini and his treatment?

You could have opened the “About” folder on the top of the page. But since you ask:

I am a pathologist working in a taxpayer financed health care system. I am also a friend and a relative of people who had to deal with cancer for real. As a pathologist I have examined thousands of cancers macroscopically as well as microscopically. I am coauthor of 54 scientific research papers, most of which are about cancer. I have cosupervised a little more than a handful of PhD-students, all about cancer. I have peer reviewed other cancer researchers papers (I have lost track of the number). What are your credentials to make you capable of assessing if Tullio Simoncini is right or wrong?

Also, have you spoken to his patients? Do you know of his success rate in these treatments?

There are several examples on this blog where you can see why testimonials aren’t reliable. We even have this one, where you can check out the facts for yourself.

Dr. Simoncini has brought his documented evidence to medical conventions in the U.S. and evidentally he has convinced some experts to do their own research.

He has not convinced anybody at a real medical convention. He has convinced people at alternative medicine conventions.
research.

my husband had pancreatic cancer ,he passed away in 2012 .in January I was so desperate for him to be alive so I spend my nights caring for him and reading everything possible in the internet for cancer as the doctors told us only 3 month even chemo wasn’t option .So I found Dr. Simoncini rang his number and arrange an appointment with him in Rome in his house I fly from London to Rome the next day left my sick husband for a day as I believed the Wonder Dr .I met him with my husband’s CT scan copy he looked it for 30 seconds and said no problem I can cure him .I said ok and got so exited I beg him like God please help me to save my husband ,and he said ok we will operate him (when best uk clinics said no way for operation as he had spreads in all organs )but in clinic in Serbia -Belgrade which is non eu country and after 3 days you can fly back to London He will than insert a pipe in his body to receive a soda bicarbonate infusions and he will be ok.For all this Though I have to bring 15 000 euro in cash to gave him in Belgrade for the operation also I paid 150 GBP for his consultation .I came home and told my husband he said to me only that if we go there and he dies on operation table I wouldn’t be able to live with myself and he doesn’t want to hurt me any more than that and anyway now when I think I cant believe I was even thinking of that never the less we used soda bicarbonate in his drinks and no need to tell the result .My experience was real and I did not believe that doctor when I met him so I hope sick people don’t waste their time and money .

Dear Rakel,
and what are you trying to say? you did not do anything! Just gave him medication prescribed by medical physician. There is not disagreement between so called “conventional medicine” and Dr. Simoncini, the tumour most of the time is covered with candida. Difference is in interpretation. Medical establishment believes that yeast build up is because of cancer, Dr. Simoncini believes it is a reason of cancer. Who is right? We don’t know! But his treatment is positive in about 30% of cases, and conventional medicine about 2%. You had to decide, if to spend money on 30% success ratio.

I don’t want to sound “conspiracy supporter” but you and JLI look to me a conventional medicine fronts public relations. Some of your postings were requiring more then weeks of study by group of people, very articulate in language. To present a half truth as a fact requires sophistication and time.

Fact: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15907554
Fact: Canadian Cancer Society: “non massaged data statistics” about 33% die first year. Most of the treated cancer patients are death by 5th year.
Fact: American Medical Association: up to 40% of “cancer” treated are not cancers at all. With so large death rate, many “healthy” people die from treatment.

And I can go on and on. But I am just average “Joe” with other things to do in my life. Like trying to save my life naturally. I have supposedly stage 4 cancer. From 3 people diagnosed at the same time, I am only one still alive. They opted for conventional treatment, I have refused.

Cancer tumours are not typically covered in fungus, nor do they consist of fungus, as Simoncini claims. Systemic fungus infections generally are only seen in patients who are immunocompromised. Fungus candida A. is not cancer, it is not the cause of cancer and even if it were, it could not be cured with baking soda. Baking soda does not cure cancer and is of no use whatsoever for patients with fungus infection, for the simple reason that baking soda does not cure anything.

Fact: Canadian Cancer Society: “non massaged data statistics” about 33% die first year. Most of the treated cancer patients are death by 5th year.
Fact: American Medical Association: up to 40% of “cancer” treated are not cancers at all. With so large death rate, many “healthy” people die from treatment.

1. Canadian Cancer Society – every year they print a statistic for the past year. They even devide it by locstion of cancer.

Interstingly they have a other statistics. A survival rate between treated cancer and non trested. Its for physician’s eyes only. I saw it last time about 4 years ago, physician immefiatelly hide it and did not want to give me a copy. What I remember the survival was up to 40% better, depending on location, if left untreated.

2. American Medical Association, you can google it through New York Times, if AMA hided it.

It is a subanalysis of a study involving patients participating in a study where two types of treatments for invasive Candida infection was compared. In all 224 patients participated in the study. Only 74 of these had cancer. The study you reference is about these 74 patients.

The study does not say anything about how many cancer patients also have invasive candida infection. And it doesn’t say anything about how many patients diagnosed with cancer survive for at least 5 years.

From this study, you might as well argue that most patients diagnosed with invasive Candida are not diagnosed with cancer.

Hello JLI,
Thank you for reading the site. But you have to compare apples to apples. The statistic is very easy to manipulate. I stated unmassaged statistic. You have to you can’t take a raw data when you describe cancer diagnosed and then massaged data to show some improvements in treatments. First page of every year report shows simple statistic. Number of cancers diagnosed and how many people died. For rest of the data you have to be trained statistician to understand where massaging had been done. You have to understand that the CCS is close associated with CMA same like in USA the AMA is close associated with your cancer societies. Canadian Cancer Society sometimes list the massaging parameters, for treated cancers. One is 60 months lifecycle. If you die 60 months plus 1 day, you are cured.

@ Stanko999
Could you please point us to the specific information that leads you to believe that the Canadian Cancer Society explains that most cancer patients do not survive for at least 5 years.

Given your demonstrable misunderstanding of the candida study, and what is reported about the outcome of cancer treatments elsewhere in the world, there are good reasons to believe that you have misunderstood the statistics.

No misunderstanding on my part. Contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival is not the same as effect of conventional treatment. Read Beatis’ excellent analysis of the study again, and learn why the conclusion of the article is wrong.

First I start with death rate: I have downloaded 2007 statistics and I am going to use it now but I am
ready to discuss the latest, at other times, because I know it will be even more devistating then this. But 2007 I have in my computer.

Ok, 2007 page 13, raw data, no massaging involved. Over 150,000 new diagnostics and over 72,000 deaths. 45% die. All cancers, no age massaging, no selected cancers, or other statistical tools to come to “truths” desired.

Now to JIL, we agreed to disagree about the study. Best is if you write, what you understand the title of the research says, as you understand and of course the last paragraph. Then we can discuss the body.

Title of the study:
Invasive candidiasis in cancer patients: observations from a randomized clinical trial.

Last paragraph:
Underlying cancers, most commonly leukaemias and gastrointestinal tumors, were present in one-third of patients enrolled in this study of invasive candidiasis. Overall, 70% of caspofungin-treated and 56% of amphotericin B-treated cancer patients responded favorably. Response rates were lower for neutropenic leukaemic patients than for non-neutropenic patients with solid tumors in both treatment groups.

As I said before, I am very weary not to be called a “conspiracy supporter” but you mentioned study of Beatis, you two people are too articulate and highly knowledgable how to massage data to be just innocent bystanders. It tells me that “cancer wasted interests” worry about the better educated public and it starting to cost them, when it hurts the most, their wallet.

These numbers do not say anything about how long people diagnosed with cancer survive. And they do not say anything that can be interpreted as “Most of the treated cancer patients are death by 5th year.”
And they do not show anything that can be interpreted as “conventional treatment is only positive in 2%”.

Best is if you write, what you understand the title of the research says

Okay. You were responding to the explanation of where the claim of 2% benefit came from. But if you meant to discuss the Candida study, then fine by me.

“Title of the study:”
Data from a study about treatment of patients who suffered from candida. Included in this analysis are patients diagnosed with cancer. Patients who were diagnosed with candida but didn’t have cancer is not a subject of this article. But these patients were included in the trial, and they were the majority of the participants.

Last paragraph:
2/3 of the patients in the study did not have cancer. The study does not say anything about the proportion of patients with cancer who will subsequently be diagnosed with invasive candida. And it does not say anything that implies, that invasive candida preceeds or coincide with the diagnosis of cancer.

I am very weary not to be called a “conspiracy supporter”

But you behave like one. Both mine and Beatis credentials have been presented over and over again on this site. If you don’t believe that we are honest and sincere, there is nothing we can do about it.

Ok, 2007 page 13, raw data, no massaging involved. Over 150,000 new diagnostics and over 72,000 deaths. 45% die. All cancers, no age massaging, no selected cancers, or other statistical tools to come to “truths” desired.

I haven’t been able to find a download on 2007 (perhaps you can provide us with a link), but I did find this, which contains the same kind of information, but about 2013 instead of 2007:

An estimated 187,600 new cases of cancer and 75,500 deaths from cancer will occur in Canada in 2013.

Statistics can be downloaded in the menu on the left. I think you misunderstood what it says: it merely states how many new cases of cancer there will be in a given year and how many cancer patients will die in the same year, e.g. 2007. It does not say that all deaths occur in the same group, i.e. the patients who were diagnosed in 2007 (2013). Would this be so, then it would mean that of all the cancer patients in Canada, deaths would only occur in the group who was diagnosed in 2007 (or 2013 respectively). Surely you must realize that this cannot be the case?

Further down in the article it says (my bold):

Survival

Survival is the percentage of people who are alive at some point in time after their cancer diagnosis. There are many different ways of measuring and reporting cancer survival statistics. Most survival statistics are reported for a specific time period, such as 5 years.
Survival rates vary from low to high depending on the type of cancer and other factors. For example, based on 2006–2008 estimates:
The 5-year relative survival rate for lung cancer is low (17%).
The 5-year relative survival rate for colorectal cancer is average (65%).
The 5-year relative survival rate is high for prostate cancer (96%) and breast cancer (88%).Based on 2006–2008 estimates, 63% of Canadians diagnosed with cancer are expected to survive for 5 years or more after a cancer diagnosis.
Between 1992–1994 and 2006–2008, survival rates increased from 56% to 63% for all cancers combined.